Posted: Nov 19, 2019 5:19 am
by Scott Mayers
Spearthrower wrote:
Given you just posted this as though it obviously speaks for itself to you, can you defend the progress of the evidence that leads to the unique conclusion that the phenomena is actually representing a hot origin personally? Or are you just trusting the scientific authority without actually knowing?

This is an intriguing notion I have encountered before; it appears to suggest that one must garner the same degree of expert knowledge as specialists in highly technical fields before accepting their findings as valid.

Of course, it has to be noted that this is already part of the process of scientific knowledge acquisition as relevant experts will review any report before publication, and other teams of scientists working in that particular narrow field will be checking and testing the findings to see if they're reproducible under the same conditions.

My position would be that it is the process itself which is largely trustworthy, and one shouldn't be expected to devote their lives to checking every statement made by a team of experts, but rather to hold such finds as distinct possibilities (i.e. 'valid', not 'true') until proven otherwise. This is, of course, not to say that scientific method cannot be exploited or fail at times, but there is a self-correction process both through other knowledgeable human agents actively seeking falsification of a hypothesis, and the fact that any claim must ultimately stand up to the only valid arbiter: further observations.

Fair enough. I understand the impracticality of being able to absolutely doubt everything. But there are other prior questions regarding the logical paradoxes of boundaries of space that is non-resolvable with a real singularity (versus a virtual one) to which should rule out a Big Bang interpretation from the get go.

But while the logic of from the intial premises that derive a Big Bang interpretation is at extreme odds, it was oddly not ruled out regardless. That is, the deductive rationale leads to paradoxes with the Big Bang but NOT the Steady State version. Yet an inductive interpretation of what the CMBR represents is given supreme rational to overthrow the Steady State (a weaker logic for being at best an inductive observation ...and one not able to be repeated either).

Given deduction on the same logic rules over induction, which is never able to assure anything with certainty, how did the Big Bang get a pass with such ease but the Steady State get tossed out? This might need a digression elsewhere on 'expansion' and logic but helps express why I am asking others. I don't get how others think that you can put faith in the appearance of the INTERPRETATION of an observation that leads to contradiction rather one that doesn't. Dislodging the Steady State upon a counter 'confirmation' that weakly supports (via being inductive only) the Big Bang interpretation.

Here's the sense I'm getting comparing it to how I see religious arguments:

Looking at some observation that appears as someone walking on water at a distance, one theory proposes that a real person was walking on water (because it appears so) by observation,... while another proposes that we cannot know what we see but locally (IN TIME AND SPACE) we do not see people actually able to walk on water, so it likely isn't wise to infer that what appears as one is walking on water is not justified.

The Big Bang seems like the first type of explanation that has passed the anti-logical test from the get go. (ie, the rationality of a singularity to be anti-logical AND anti-empirical given you cannot interpret the observation as ruling out a virtual appearance of a singularity) The Steady State version on the other hand lacks this paradox deductively nor does it make exception to the rule of emirical trust in local understandings of time and space. [That is, it doesn't presume a time that is 'special' whereby the laws we seek of physics breaks down}

Thus, my questioning of people who seem to trust that the Big Bang has superceded rationally over the Steady State. It feels like a cheat that needs explaining.